2. In its appeal the Revenue has taken the following ground.

"On the facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in declaring the assessment null and void."

3. The assessee in his cross-objection has raised following ground.

"The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating grounds Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 raised before him in the first appeal."

4. Briefly stating the facts relating to the issues involved in the grounds raised by the parties arising from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) are that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 148/144 of the Income-tax Act at a total income of Rs. 30,90,880 against the income of Rs. 1,473 declared by the assessee in his return of income filed on October 31, 1998 by making an addition of Rs. 30,89,407 under section 69C of the Act on account of unexplained bogus purchases.

5. On appeal before the the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessee raised the following grounds challenging the impugiied addition made by the Assessing Officer.

"1. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in making a reassessment under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without serving any notice under section 148 to the appellant.

Alternatively

2. That the reassessment order is bad in law as the reasons under section 147 were recorded and the notice under section 148 was issued by an officer who was not the Assessing Officer of the appellant.

3. That the learned Assessing Officer erred in making the reassessment under section 147 without himself recording any reason to believe that any income had escaped assessment and without himself issuing and serving any notice under section 148 to the appellant.

4. That the reassessment order is bad, being an abuse of the process of law as it seeks to circumvent the mandatory provisions of law with regard to limitation period of service of notice under section 143(2) and thereby renders the proviso to section 143(2) nugatory and a dead letter.

5. That the officer recording the reasons to believe cannot maintain escapement of income and validity of the original assessment (in the appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal) at the same time as the two situations are contradictory and mutually exclusive.

6. That there could have been no occasion to believe that the purchases made by the assessee from M/s. Pooja Crafts and M/s. Milan Handicrafts aggregating Rs. 30,89,407 were unexplained expenditure of the assessee as no final adjudication had taken place in the appeal against original assessment.

7. That the purchases from M/s. Pooja Crafts and Milan Handicrafts could at best have been treated as bogus purchases in the absence of the verification of these parties and by no stretch of imagination could they have been treated as unexplained expenditure.

6. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 mentioned the submissions of the assessee along with the case law.

7. Thereafter in paragraph 3.4 the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was null and void by merely observing as under.

"The ratio of the decision of the hon'ble Bombay High "Court reported in Metro Auto Corporation v. ITO [2006] 286 ITR 618 is squarely applicable to the case of the assessee: Respectfully following the decision of the hon'ble Bombay High Court reported in 286 ITR 618, the assessment made in the appellant's case is held as null and void. Hence, ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed. Since the assessment is declared null and void, the other